Armond: Attacked Armond: Attacked! For far ...

For far too long I have quietly suffered through the intellectually serpentine vagaries of Armond White's film criticism, but his review this week ("Film," 7/2) of Peter Watkins' La Commune has compelled me to finally respond.

Armond, you are either a disingenuous liar or a complete asshole; I know not which and do not care. You spend more than half a page complaining about the fact that La Commune is shot on video without once stating that this production was in fact shot for French television and not theatrical screenings. You do state at one point, as if it is opinion, "It's just not film. It's TV." What is one to make of this? That you were ignorant of its origins or trying to impress readers (who might not otherwise be aware) with your supposed acumen?

And would presenting that little tidbit of information have made it more difficult for you to once again launch into another film vs. video rant? Probably. "La Commune's worst fault is that it lacks the richness of film." Put it into some kind of context, jabberjaw. It's about as visually credible as a staging of Our Town, with no attempt at pictorial realism.

Your criticism reads more like the work of a failed filmmaker than a credible analytical voice. Really, I doubt your readership cares very much what you would have done instead of the actual filmmaker. You had nothing to do with the production of this or any other film that you've reviewed, so don't pretend that you have any real idea about how the process of actually making a movie works; you'll only embarrass yourself further. I suggest that you either please shut up and make your own damn movie, or start doing your homework before putting pen to paper when reviewing the works of others. Thank you.

Scooter McCrae, Brooklyn

Write Safire

Shouldn't the sentence in your ("MUGGER," 7/2) piece?"the liberal media is"?be "the liberal media are?" Seriously, do the stylebooks of newspapers now accept "media" as singular? I just want to know; I already gave up on agenda.

Gordon Daugherty, Austin

Altered View

MUGGER: You bizarrely cite Jules Witcover's editorial in the Baltimore Sun ("MUGGER," 7/2), in which he fantasizes about a hubristic GOP meeting its nemesis in '04, as another "reason" that Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? is "a complete lie." Is this the wording you really wanted? It seems that any reasons laid out for the dishonesty of Alterman and his opus should cite past examples of his dishonesty, his general shabbiness as a person or his hopelessly liberal politics.

I'm not sure that one example of a liberal viewpoint in a newspaper can be cited as a "reason" that Alterman is dishonest. Perhaps you meant to write that Witcover's essay is evidence that Alterman may be incorrect in his judgments. Anyway, why must you insist that Alterman is dishonest in the first place? Like you, he is a very tendentious thinker and writer. But can it not be possible that he sees all the examples of loud conservative voices in the media and comes to the conclusion that perhaps the media is not as "liberal" as honest thinkers such as you would have us believe? You may think he's wrong, but do you really believe he's being dishonest when he states this opinion?

It's an opinion, Mugger?just an opinion. Backed up by a lot of evidence, for sure, but really, one can hold opinions that are different from MUGGER's and still be honest. And "patriotic," for that matter.

Terry Benoit, Manhattan

Taibbi: Slammed!

This screed ("Cage Match," 7/2) made exactly zero points to counter any idea Mr. Fukuyama has ever had. So what's the point? He's not exactly a household name. So why introduce him only to impotently fling meaningless catchalls like he's "completely full of shit" at him?

The few points that Mr. Taibbi comes close to making actually bolster the Fukuyama premise that the big struggles appear over. I mean, maybe Matty considers the evils of outsized marketing and filmmaking budgets to be on par with past menaces such as anarchy, monarchy, papacy, fascism, Stalinism, Maoism and Carterism, but I will take the horror of our "fatuous commercial lives" over that of living under the feudal system or Castro's anachronistic l'etat c'est moi poverty machine any day.

The fact that he wants to shoot all the Democratic candidates into space because they would rather talk about Tax Cuts and Balanced Budgets than the "utter insanity" of Finding Nemo should preclude him from any further professional mention of the campaign. That said, New York Sports Express is wonderful, a much-needed round of well-placed cheap shots at today's fatuous commercial state of sport.

Thomas Brown, Manhattan

Taibbi: Stroked!

It's refreshing to read the untainted truth about U.S. involvement in Vietnam ("Cage Match," 6/25). Especially now, when we need to review the lessons we learned (or should have learned) about that debacle. I knew Taibbi would have the insight and the balls to say it.

Rico Fabillar, Queens

Tricky Justice

You have to realize one fact if you want to understand Antonin Scalia ("The Gist," 7/2). This man is really Richard Nixon in the witness protection program. Scrunch your eyes a little and look at his picture when he has five o'clock shadow. Beyond a doubt, he is the one and only Tricky Dicky. Have you ever seen any recent pictures of them together?

Ray Belongie, Ft. Lauderdale

Not Another Novel

I understand that Taibbi's plans to write a story revolving around the capture and containment of New York Times reporter Neil Lewis for 18 months is a rhetorical device ("Cage Match," 4/30), the function serving to elucidate what Lewis' mortal sin in responsible journalism was.

Still, I sincerely hope that Taibbi considers penning a novel that further delves into the widespread irresponsible journalism now taking place. It has become clear to me that there are many people who cannot identify "an obvious line of crap" or any sort of bias in the news they read, and writing such a novel would serve a profound social service to the oft-gullible masses.

Please thank Matt Taibbi for showing gigantic brass balls in revealing the gross factual manipulation Lewis exhibited in his "article" about Afghan war prisoners in Cuba.

Jonathan M. Price, Ft. Worth, TX

Bush's Bucks

Contrary to what Russ Smith writes ("MUGGER," 7/2), the media was much tougher on Bill Clinton's fundraising than they are on George W. Bush. Every time Clinton engaged in fundraising, the Times would call for a special prosecutor.

In contrast, the media is awed by the Bush fundraising ability and suggest that the Democrats should throw in the towel because, after all, how can they compete with such big bucks?

And there is another difference. In 1995 President Clinton was considered an underdog for reelection after the Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994. And he could have faced a primary opponent. None of that is true with Bush. Nobody in the Republican Party is going to challenge him, and he is considered an overwhelming favorite for a second term. There is no need for this so-called wartime president to spend most of his time fundraising.

Reba Shimansky, Brooklyn

D.A.R.E. to Take Drugs

I am a graduate student at the University of Chicago studying law and legal history. I was so relieved when I read Mark Ames' review of Saying Yes ("Books," 6/18) that I almost burst into tears. Finally, a historically informed, emotionally intelligent take on the drug war. Personally, I believe that the only way to fight the war on drugs is to get artists, writers and other political dissidents to exercise their 1st Amendment freedom (assuming they still have it, which I am beginning to doubt) to portray reality.

How about a movie that's not about drugs, where the successful, attractive professionals just happen to snort cocaine, sort of like in real life? How about using an illegal search and seizure as a plot device (instead of oh, say, a traffic jam) when you need someone to be late for a meeting? It seems like the movement is on the wrong track.

At least with people like Ames around, there is still some hope.

Anna Pervukhin, Chicago

Armond in the Rough

Having consistently railed against Armond in the past, I thought it only fair that I give credit where due: excellent review of Hulk ("Film," 6/25). I haven't seen the film yet, but Armond's critique seems entirely balanced and intelligent, without lapsing into the over-the-top highbrow analysis that can make him so infuriating. He also touches upon a very provocative issue that in and of itself would support a book: Hollywood has ceased using contemporary source material that has emotional resonance and truth worth exploring in a literal vein, instead taking a fantasy or stylized approach that makes up for lack of depth.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that while I'm a sucker for a provocative concept executed with visual inventiveness and excitement, I too look back wistfully on the days when mainstream movies had the patience and intelligence to deal with issues and plots that hold their own without the benefit of f/x and other non-text-based elements. It's also encouraging that Armond is actually criticizing a movie for not being more fun. Maybe there's hope for him yet. Then again ?

Mike Strassman, Brooklyn

Hush Up?You Didn't Finish the Article

I'm not sure which made less sense: the cover of your paper with a "typical" Jew strapped with a time bomb or Mr. Rushkoff's article, which was supposedly to be about Jews "killing themselves" ("Suicide Jews," 6/18). This was an obvious attention-getter and clearly paints an unfair comparison of Jews' own suicide to killers in Israel. If Mr. Rushkoff's article explained or made the connection between the cover and "the point," I may not have been so offended.

Regarding the actual article, which I have to admit I could not bear to finish, so I can't speak thoroughly about it: Mr. Rushkoff seems to do exactly what he seems to despise (which is still unclear). He rambles on about how the "higher-ups" in the Jewish World don't give reason for their actions or theories, meanwhile finding himself rambling on for paragraphs without stopping to provide bases or rationale for his own ideas (which are also still very incomprehensible). I'm not sure what he wants or how he imagines going about getting there, but Jews will never be going around becoming human killing machines.

Judah Press, Manhattan

Avery's Labels

I was disappointed by your cover, but I was surprised at how moronic the actual article is ("Suicide Jews," 6/18). Whenever Rushkoff brushes across a potentially legitimate concern, he buries it with his arrogant, pseudocynical, postmodern, surprisingly holier-than-thou analysis.

So what is the proposed solution that he wants Jews to adopt? What makes a Jew if it is not defined by the Judaism of thousands of years? Despite differing or changing customs, what makes a Jew a Jew? Can one be more insulting than to state that Jews have backed themselves into a corner of literalism? What is the Constitution of the U.S. and how old is it? Should we dismiss it as not relevant, or are the "rights" not to be seen as literal rights?

The Torah teaches us so much about how to conduct ourselves, our relationships with others and to g-d. For someone to not believe is an exercise of free will. But for someone to so dismissively treat Judaism and to put it in print is just sad. The article reeks of self-anger and self-importance. It signifies the death of independent thinking and true discourse within the author?not even close to the demise of institutional Judaism.

I am mainly writing to let you know that I was equally disappointed in your editors giving such prominence to such a puff piece disguised as hard-hitting journalism. In two weeks' time, Judaism will continue to shine as it has for more than 2000 years, as Mr. What-was-his-name-again will be desperately trying to add several minutes to his (at most) 15 minutes of fame.

Peter Avery, Manhattan

If a Letter Goes Unread, Does It Make a Sound?

If an article appearing in a free, local, weekly newspaper makes numerous assertions not based on facts and displays a remarkable ignorance of the subject matter at hand, should one even bother to respond to the article ("Suicide Jews," 6/18)? This imponderable, amongst others, is raised by Douglas Rushkoff's article in last week's New York Press. Upon reflection, I concluded in the affirmative.

Rushkoff raises interesting questions. He asserts (support apparently unnecessary) that the essence of Judaism is social activism. Is anything else sacred? Let's see: God? For the simpletons. The Jewish people? For the racists. The land of Israel? For the nationalists. Basically, voting Democrat. I must be some sort of lapsed Jew, then. After all these years of yeshiva education, not once have I made a blessing upon a visit to the ballot box.

Indeed, Rushkoff's article raises the question: What, exactly, qualifies Rushkoff's concept of his religion as Judaism, other than whimsy? Indeed, is any reinterpretation of a concept legitimate, notwithstanding a remarkable lack of authority of the presenter and an utter lack of evidence? I hope so. I have a few interesting (if I say so myself) "reinterpretations" of other concepts, such as gravity, which I would love to see validated (certain scientists, when presented with my reinterpretations, scoffed, but clearly they were cowed by the brute power of my original thinking).

Rushkoff is apparently troubled by a couple of harsh reviews of his writing. Rushkoff, displaying remarkable megalomania, concludes that such reviews were obviously motivated by an utter contempt for free thought. Possibly. It is indeed unfortunate that Rushkoff's book was greeted with harsh reviews. But it does raise a further imponderable: Was the harsh reaction a result of a Jewish conspiracy to smother Rushkoff's blinding truths, or were they merely a reaction to a very loud, very ill-thought-out book?

Rushkoff valiantly offers himself as a sacrifice at the altar of free thought, claiming that his status as a Jew has essentially been revoked. His offer, though generous, is unnecessary. Even the most strictly observant Jews (including the guy with the bomb on the cover of the Press) do not define Jews in terms of how "kosher" their beliefs are. Notwithstanding his assertions to the contrary, Rushkoff's statements have zero impact upon his status as a Jew. But thanks for the offer.

Douglas Segal, Manhattan